effective methods

>
> > Maybe we have no influence directly but just by talking
> > about it - if there are e-mails zipping arond about
> > it then maybe that may make a difference somehow.
>
> Here is where *I* say sorry: while I don't have a good answer, I am so
> tired of the river of emails that don't do anything at all, short of

It's not quite true that the rivers of e-mail don't do anything.

Yes, I too have been told that Senators/Reps don't pay any attention to
e-mails. So when important issues come up, I usually FAX them or phone
them.

When I FAX them I usually get a reply by Snail-Mail at some point a few
months later. I notice that I've gotten replies, however, even about
totally mass-esque e-mail stuff I sent, figuring what the @#$%$#@%, I
don't have time to make a FAX right now, so I'll just click "send". I
didn't even go in and modify the letter to make it look like "mine".

And they still sent me a Snail-Mail reply. Whic means, that my e-mail
registered with them at some level.

So, I think the answer is, it depends on the issue, on the particular
person, and on other factors. But it's not always useless.

If a Senator tells you it's useless, then I suppose you should believe
them, for that particular Senator. . . . but I guess my point is, if
there's some mass campaign that only requires you to click a button, then
why the @#$% not click the button? Can't hurt. . .

> making us a teeny bit more comfortable that we're doing something. We
> just saw an election of an idiot in this country, and the kind of
> electronic marshalling of forces to keep him from being re-elected was
> extraordinary. And ineffective, to boot.

NO IT WAS NOT. We may have lost, but, for example, in Cincinnati,
counties that normally would win Republican by huge margins, won by only,
like, 6 points or so. That's in a Republican stronghold.

I do think that we need to think of new strategies for the future, but I
don't think our work was totally ineffective.

> ease of sitting in one's own home, typing typing typing, isn't nearly
> as effective as getting out in the physical world.
>

Could be true. . . but there's a time for arguing in a reasonable way with
people, and a time for hitting the streets screaming. The former might
include typing things at home, solidifying your own views, etc.

I actually think that a lot of recent activity was in the streets.

Plus, let's face it, if it weren't for the internet, there probably
wouldn't have been nearly as much protest over the war in Iraq, before it
even started; heck, I probably wouldn't be remotely interested in
politics if it hadn't been for the Web/Email.

> fellow committed suicide at the site of the 9/11 attacks, grieving
> over the fact that Bush won. If people killing themselves doesn't get
> the attention of the parties involved, what will?

Any volunteers to give oral sex to W?

Hi Chris,

When I'm in 'passionate mode' I might go a bit over the top on some
issues.

What am I saying - "might"??? Anyhow...

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@m...> wrote:
> It's not quite true that the rivers of e-mail don't do anything.

Right. But I hold that these 'virtual' protests and messages -
currently - do not carry the weight that the more old-fashioned ways
did. Boxes and boxes of letters to a representative, I would bet, give
them more pause to consider than a similar amount sitting in an email
account somewhere. If nothing else, they have to deal with all that paper.

I'm not saying I necesserily prefer that, but I think the emailing of
viewpoints is overrated. And I could be wrong.

> ... but I guess my point is, if
> there's some mass campaign that only requires you to click a button,
then
> why the @#$% not click the button? Can't hurt. . .

Unless it eventually ends up devaluing email as a medium for political
change by the ephemeral nature of it.

> > And ineffective, to boot.
>
> NO IT WAS NOT.

Yes, that was too strong. But not as effective as a lot of pastors and
preachers yammering at captive audiences. I really think this is a
social situation that the loyal opposition is going to have to think
long and hard about: what medium can one come up with to keep a large,
disparate group together, focussed and purposed, that would be a
viable counterpart to the social structure of large church
organizations. That they get together, talk, socialize, etc, is
something that emailing each other is not a surrogate for.

I don't think the church vote was the only thing that put Shrub over
the top, but it will only get stronger.

> I do think that we need to think of new strategies for the future,
but I
> don't think our work was totally ineffective.

Right. Not effective enough, maybe.

> I actually think that a lot of recent activity was in the streets.

Some of it, yes. Think of the huge anti-war protests in England and
Europe. What makes me bitter is that none of it altered the march to war.

> Any volunteers to give oral sex to W?

Lynn Cheney?

Cheers,
Jon